stanj wrote:
That may be difficult since I sold the mk1 already. I am going purely based on "feel", since I had the mk1 for 11 years and it's been one of my most used lenses. The fact that "it wasn't sharp in the corners" never really bothered me...
ben egbert wrote:
Where is the 24mk2 FM review? A few lenses have been shipped, must be some FM'rs who would give us a review on the FM lens review page.
Thank you, Guardian man. Now I can post my review. Oh wait, but I don't have the lens. No matter, I'll base my review on a few images I've seen so far on the net. Heck, seen one, seen them all.
Nice! You know shooting any lens with a super DOF almost always renders the sharp corner thing meaningless. I'm looking at the kid who has eyes super sharp...just right!
MSC wrote:
Nice! You know shooting any lens with a super DOF almost always renders the sharp corner thing meaningless. I'm looking at the kid who has eyes super sharp...just right!
Not if you do landscapes. Look at the comparison of the 24f1.4II to either a 24-70 or 24-105 even at f8, the zooms are still pretty soft in the corners.
For the type of image posted a closeup of people I would probably be cropping 50% anyway, and printing at 4X6 so who cares. But for a 16x24 landscape with no cropping, I need those corners.
Oh, I'm def not saying it is not important...just meaningless for this particular kind of shot (which I do a lot of too, wide open & lowlight). Agree with you, it is important and one would expect an improvement in all aspects with the new version...24 is a great length for landscapes stopped down and my guess is that it is pretty good there too.
ben egbert wrote:
Not if you do landscapes. Look at the comparison of the 24f1.4II to either a 24-70 or 24-105 even at f8, the zooms are still pretty soft in the corners.
For the type of image posted a closeup of people I would probably be cropping 50% anyway, and printing at 4X6 so who cares. But for a 16x24 landscape with no cropping, I need those corners.
_I_ use the 24L exclusively for low light photography. If I do landscapes, I use either the other 24L (the TSE) or a zoom. I would even dare to say that most people who buy super fast primes do it for the speed and not to shoot landscapes. As such, I have no need for f8 (actually, anything beyond f2.8) or corner sharpness. Whatever I said in this thread is to be seen in that (low) light
Roy Pertchik wrote:
Actually, I agree with the idea that at f8, there is little difference between lenses. Certainly between "L"'s and other high quality lenses, there is little dif at f8 (I am sure I'll get hammered for that. I'm not saying NO dif, but I am saying LITTLE dif between the best extreem and any good pro lens.) And, many non-L lenses are also nearly as good as the best at f8. To say it in the reverse, generally, high end performance is on the wide open end, and that's where you get most of what you are paying for, IMHO. ...Show more →
corners at f/8 on a 135L totally kill those of a 17-40L
corners of a 70-200 f/4 IS much better than on a 70-300 IS at f/8
tamron 17-50 at 24mm at f/8 is generally much better than the 24mm prime at f/8
300 2.8 IS at f/8 has no CA of any sort while 18-55 kit or 17-40L or 24-105L or etc. have tons of CA at f/8 at many parts of their focal range
300 2.8 IS at f/2.8 is noticeably sharper and contrastier than sigma 120-300 at f/6.3
distagon 21mm at f/8 has much sharper corners than any of the wide zooms and any of the canon wide primes (not sure about the new 24mm mkII though)
300 f/4 non-IS at f/8 gets more PF than 300 2.8 IS
100mm macro has better corners at f/3.5 than 17-40L at f/10
ben egbert wrote:
Not if you do landscapes. Look at the comparison of the 24f1.4II to either a 24-70 or 24-105 even at f8, the zooms are still pretty soft in the corners.
For the type of image posted a closeup of people I would probably be cropping 50% anyway, and printing at 4X6 so who cares. But for a 16x24 landscape with no cropping, I need those corners.
yeah, for me a 24mm focal length largely means landscapes and largely means that corners mean a great deal
the 24-105 at 24 is looking pretty sad in the corners on a 50D and 5dmkii after a few quick tests
the 24mm f/2.8 prime was pretty mediocre even at f/8 (my tamron zooms seemed much better)
tamron 28-75 seems pretty good on markii at edges but corners are a bit soft, especially top right on mine it seems
i wish the wide lenses were not always all about f/0.9 and so on and their inherent size, weight and cost and often such optimizations actually hrut f/8 performance a bit canon needs a nice slow wide prime that has stunning sharpness corner to corner with low CA and great contrast and color
If you're worried about corner sharpness, but still want the speed of the 24L, consider also picking up an olympus zuiko 24mm f/2.8 (multicoated) w/ adapter. It's tiny, produces nice colors, and stopped down is sharp, sharp, sharp into the corners.
The eye looks very good but in all honesty it's a bit difficult to judge from a casual pic in web size. As you stated you didn't do any testing what I was looking for is a kind of simple sentence like "Corner sharpness was great in both but corner sharpness is better in the Mk II".
I think Stan's point was that when shooting at a large aperture, sharp corners are mostly irrelevant - as displayed beautifully by the picture he posted.
For those who have/had used both I & II can you try using it on a DSLR with a high density sensor like the 50D? I think this is where we will see the actual difference between the I and II. Why else make a version 2 that is bigger and heavier?
justruss wrote:
If you're worried about corner sharpness, but still want the speed of the 24L, consider also picking up an olympus zuiko 24mm f/2.8 (multicoated) w/ adapter. It's tiny, produces nice colors, and stopped down is sharp, sharp, sharp into the corners.
a bit less expensive than zeiss distagon 21mm and cnon 24mm II L too
anyway i guess i can give it a test and hope this is the case
Roy Pertchik wrote:
Actually, I agree with the idea that at f8, there is little difference between lenses. Certainly between "L"'s and other high quality lenses, there is little dif at f8 (I am sure I'll get hammered for that. I'm not saying NO dif, but I am saying LITTLE dif between the best extreem and any good pro lens.) And, many non-L lenses are also nearly as good as the best at f8. To say it in the reverse, generally, high end performance is on the wide open end, and that's where you get most of what you are paying for, IMHO. ...Show more →
skibum5 wrote:
corners at f/8 on a 135L totally kill those of a 17-40L
corners of a 70-200 f/4 IS much better than on a 70-300 IS at f/8
tamron 17-50 at 24mm at f/8 is generally much better than the 24mm prime at f/8
300 2.8 IS at f/8 has no CA of any sort while 18-55 kit or 17-40L or 24-105L or etc. have tons of CA at f/8 at many parts of their focal range
300 2.8 IS at f/2.8 is noticeably sharper and contrastier than sigma 120-300 at f/6.3
distagon 21mm at f/8 has much sharper corners than any of the wide zooms and any of the canon wide primes (not sure about the new 24mm mkII though)
300 f/4 non-IS at f/8 gets more PF than 300 2.8 IS
100mm macro has better corners at f/3.5 than 17-40L at f/10
I'm not personally familiar with all of those lenses, but your reporting is interesting. Never the less, In my post above I should have said that the performance of pro level lenses of the same focal length at f8 are similar, much more so than the performance differences wide open. Comparing 135L corners to 17-40 is not really cricket, is it? As for your more apples to apples comparisons, I'd have to see examples. Remember I said it's not that there is no difference between good lenses [of the same focal length] at f8, just that the difference was small, compared to the differences that show up wider open, IMHO
No matter, I'll base my review on a few images I've seen so far on the net. 
Heck, seen one, seen them all. 
and often such optimizations actually hrut f/8 performance a bit